How can he think he’ll be re-elected running against the continually expressed views and will of the American people? Not just running against the white,non-Muslim people as he has been doing,but now running against blacks, Hispanics, and even Muslims!
What about his support for wealth redistribution,which Americans reject;his support for union thugs overriding the most basic of American rights and values,the secret ballot,;his support for keeping American companies from putting Americans to work unless they allow his union thug handlers to extort forced payments to the corrupt unions ;his support for stripping the Catholic Church,and,in effect,any religious organization from conforming to the rules of their religion(s);his plea for patience from the Russians,until after he is re-elected,for him to gut our missile defense; his blatant attacks on other supposedly co-equal branches of our government, in his quest to destroy a Constitution he despises,;and his forcing of Obamacare on an unwilling American populace?
I can,and will,go on.
These are just some of the issues on which Obama diametrically opposes the American voter. What is his plan? What will help him overcome the obvious obstacles between him and freedom loving patriotic Americans?
His campaign promise to cause energy rates to “necessarily skyrocket” has caused fuel prices to at least double,and his assault on the coal industry,which supplies most of our electricity,is completely out of line for someone looking out for American interests. His administration’s blatant lies and alterations to official documents led to an unwarranted moratorium on deep-water drilling in the Gulf . We can give Brazil billions to deep-water drill,but we Americans can’t drill for our own oil.
As if that wasn’t enough to make anyone wonder how this man can expect to be re-elected,we still haven’t touched the subject of his purposeful destruction of the American capitalist system. His redistribution of wealth to the green energy scammers,mostly his friends and campaign fundraisers like Solyndra,has led to failures and bankruptcies from most of the companies to which he gave money.
It seems to me that there are a preponderance of issues President Obama supports that freedom loving Americans want no part of.
Is he hoping for enough civil unrest from his personal army (SEIU,the UAW,and his foot soldiers in the Occupy movement) for him to rely on martial law and suspended elections?
What are Americans to think when the Army “accidentally” releases information regarding the treatment of freedom loving Americans pursuing happiness under the auspices and moral and ethical boundaries of the Constitution,who wind up in the Presidents re-education camps for “political activists,” and how their voices will be silenced by gags as they (WE,because I’m damn sure I’ll be there,too) are forced to do hard labor for our beliefs?
Newly released,declassified files released by the United Kingdom reveals U.S. officials’concerns that Kenyans studying in America,including President Obama’s father,may have had ties to Kenyan terrorist groups that were supported by communist nations in the 1950s and early 1960s.
As yet the documents exist only in physical form at the National Archives in Kew,Southwest London –but they are open to the public,a British police source told the Law Enforcement Examiner on Sunday.
Documents released in April by the British government —but ignored until the left-leaning,London-based newspaper The Guardian printed a story —reveal that the President’s father,Barack Hussein Obama,Senior,was the target of an international investigation due to his ties to Kenyan terrorist groups in the 1950s such as the group responsible for the so-called Mao-Mao Uprising in Kenya.
The declassified documents,which had been kept secret for decades,“were privately condemned by Obama administration officials,”a British source told the Law Enforcement Examiner.
Obama’s White House and re-election campaign teams feared the documents could hurt the struggling president,especially with independent voters,as polls showed Obama trailing Republican contender Mitt Romney in several key states by a few points,according to a Gallup Poll also released in April.
As the 2012 campaign season gets to a fever pitch,one race to watch will be California’s Senate race for the people’s seat currently held by Diane Feinstein. Currently,the top GOP candidate is Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ. Dr. Taitz had recently requested that a series of debates be scheduled with Senator Feinstein,providing that Dr. Taitz is the GOP nominee. The response from Feinstein’s campaign is simply amazing. It is loaded with pre-conditions,including banning FOX news from covering it. The following is that e-mail from www.orlytaitzesq.com.
It looks like you may end up being the California Republican nominee for Senate in the November general election. While I understand that you wanted to set up some debates before the June primary,this would have been inappropriate given the large field of candidates.
However if,as anticipated,you do become the Republican candidate,I would like to set up three debates to be televised by three major television stations. The debates would take place in Los Angeles,San Francisco,and San Diego.Our campaign would suggest evening debates at 18:00 in order to capture a higher percentage of viewers.
However,our campaign has five ground rules which we would like agreement upon before proceeding further:
(1) No questions shall be asked and no answers shall be given concerning the eligibility of President Obama or any related matters. The debate should focus on economic,social,and foreign policy issues.
(2) The format of the debates shall provide for a two minute response,followed by a one minute rebuttal,followed by a 30 second response.
(3) No notes,documents,or teleprompters shall be allowed.
(4) No debates shall be televised by Fox News or any affiliates thereof.
(5) None of your supporters shall be allowed to attend. Guests shall be limited to 100 voters chosen at random.
Please let me know if these ground rules would be satisfactory. Also,please let me know of nine potential dates in October during which you would be available.
Kind regards,
Sef Greene
Debate Coordinator
It seems very strange to me that Ms. Feinstein could demand the violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution on three seperate occasions in one e-mail. The right to free speech,the right to free press,and the right to peaceably assemble. Senator Feinstein should sit down and read the very document that she swore to uphold,defend,and protect. Senator Feinstein gives new meaning to Nancy Pelosi’s term of “draining the swamp”. I urge all Tea Party Patriots to do what you can to help Dr. Taitz take out the trash. From Obama,right on down. Stay safe,and be aware of your surroundings.
Recent weeks have seen ombudsmen at both the New York Times and the Washington Post defend their respective newspapers from charges of journalistic bias and a deep-seated,enduring slant to the political left. Defined as “trusted [intermediaries] between…an organization and some…external constituency,” it is the job of New York Times ombudsman Arthur Brisbane and the Post’s Patrick Pexton to represent “the broad scope of constituent interests” by seeking to present readers with facts and straightforward,impartial reporting.
Of course,anyone with a sense of humor—or any sense at all—will get a real kick out of claims of straightforward and impartial reporting by the Times or the Post. But that is exactly what these embattled colleagues have done in their attempts to defend recent articles responsible for more than the usual show of outrage from the reading public.
On May 10th, the Post printed a story of Mitt Romney’s 1965 involvement in forcibly cutting the hair of fellow Cranbrook student John Lauber. According to the very lengthy article,Romney and a number of friends threw Lauber to the ground and submitted him to a cruel and “vicious hack job.” Of course,Lauber also turned out to be gay. A remarkable coincidence of timing considering Obama’s sudden act of “coming out” in support of gay marriage. As the Post tells it though,these things “… just happened to coincide…”
However,as PJ Media points out,“…the story directly quoted a dead man;it claimed things about him that,being dead,he is in no position to affirm or refute;it mischaracterized the opinion of one of its core witnesses;and the family of the dead man (Lauber) says the story is factually inaccurate.”
The Post’s Pexton responds to such criticism from conservative web sites and large numbers of readers with:“The Mitt Romney bullying story holds up to scrutiny,” even as he defends as quite innocent timing clearly designed to assist the President.
The New York Times’ unintentional foray into slapstick involves the newspaper’s April 21st laugher “A Hard Look at the President.” Not only has Pinch’s family publication never come close to doing what the title suggests;Ombudsman Arthur Brisbane actually hopes to reassure readers skeptical of the Time’s intentions by stating “The warm afterglow of Mr. Obama’s election,the collateral effects of liberal-minded feature writers—these can be overcome by hard-nosed,unbiased political reporting now.”
Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey responds to this extraordinary statement beautifully,with “One can imagine Lucy telling Charlie Brown much the same thing right before pulling the football away for the 50th year in a row.”
It is hardly a secret that the New York Times and Washington Post literally act as willing and dutiful publicity arms of the Democrat Party and the Obama Regime. What is interesting is the sudden concern exhibited by these publications about the way in which they are viewed by their readers. Expressed public outrage has done little to stir corporate ombudsmen from decades of smug slumber in the past. So why now? Is it possible that these important media allies of the President realize that their guy is in desperate trouble and must therefore respond to and deny any potentially harmful accusations of bias and intrigue?
It might be very instructive to see if it becomes commonplace for the media to defend its journalistic integrity over the coming months.
Paid for by National Campaign Fund and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
Contributions are not tax deductible for federal income tax purposes.
Contributions are only used in Federal elections. Contributions are limited to $5000.00 per calendar year from an individual. Federal law requires political committees to report the name,address,occupation and name of employer for each individual whose contributions aggregate in excess of $200 in a calendar year. Contributions may only be accepted from United States citizens at least 18 years of age. Contributions must be made from an individual's personal funds and cannot be made from the general treasury funds of a corporation,labor organization,national bank or from the general treasury of an entity or person who is a federal contractor. Funds cannot be provided to a contributor by another person or entity for the purpose of making a contribution.
National Campaign Fund National Campaign Fund - 42104 N. Venture Drive Suite B122 - Anthem,AZ 85086 - (202) 465-7192
How Far Will Obama Go To Get Re-Elected?
What does he know?
How can he think he’ll be re-elected running against the continually expressed views and will of the American people? Not just running against the white,non-Muslim people as he has been doing,but now running against blacks, Hispanics, and even Muslims!
What about his support for wealth redistribution,which Americans reject;his support for union thugs overriding the most basic of American rights and values,the secret ballot,;his support for keeping American companies from putting Americans to work unless they allow his union thug handlers to extort forced payments to the corrupt unions ;his support for stripping the Catholic Church,and,in effect,any religious organization from conforming to the rules of their religion(s);his plea for patience from the Russians,until after he is re-elected,for him to gut our missile defense; his blatant attacks on other supposedly co-equal branches of our government, in his quest to destroy a Constitution he despises,;and his forcing of Obamacare on an unwilling American populace?
I can,and will,go on.
These are just some of the issues on which Obama diametrically opposes the American voter. What is his plan? What will help him overcome the obvious obstacles between him and freedom loving patriotic Americans?
His campaign promise to cause energy rates to “necessarily skyrocket” has caused fuel prices to at least double,and his assault on the coal industry,which supplies most of our electricity,is completely out of line for someone looking out for American interests. His administration’s blatant lies and alterations to official documents led to an unwarranted moratorium on deep-water drilling in the Gulf . We can give Brazil billions to deep-water drill,but we Americans can’t drill for our own oil.
As if that wasn’t enough to make anyone wonder how this man can expect to be re-elected,we still haven’t touched the subject of his purposeful destruction of the American capitalist system. His redistribution of wealth to the green energy scammers,mostly his friends and campaign fundraisers like Solyndra,has led to failures and bankruptcies from most of the companies to which he gave money.
It seems to me that there are a preponderance of issues President Obama supports that freedom loving Americans want no part of.
What is his plan?
Is he hoping for enough civil unrest from his personal army (SEIU,the UAW,and his foot soldiers in the Occupy movement) for him to rely on martial law and suspended elections?
What are Americans to think when the Army “accidentally” releases information regarding the treatment of freedom loving Americans pursuing happiness under the auspices and moral and ethical boundaries of the Constitution,who wind up in the Presidents re-education camps for “political activists,” and how their voices will be silenced by gags as they (WE,because I’m damn sure I’ll be there,too) are forced to do hard labor for our beliefs?
No related posts.